What Is This All About?

Those new to this site (newbies) inevitably want to know what this is all about. The challenge both of us have is articulation of contextual changes that make sense to you not having encountered such things before. The analogy might be experiencing another language for the very first time. It takes some effort to make communications effective under those circumstances. Someone may have suggested checking out the article posts here. Others may have already started encouraging others to join us via Patreon so that they can immediately have access to greater insights when the links in those articles actually resolve to interior pages. Patreon members get greater access, merchandise discounts, and more. If you are coming here expecting to find discussions instantiating status quo thinking modeling reality, you may as well leave now. As soon as one begins talking about unification many people immediately start thinking about theoretical sciences. Unification is not something exclusive to theoretical domains, it concerns every discipline of study and it does so exactly because it demands the integration of everything real. The aim and goal herein is to provide you something of a Rosetta Stone so you can shift modes of thought in order to both perceive and engage the unified Universe. We call that process ‘mode shifting’. Ask yourself if you can:

• Explain why status quo thinking modeling reality can not unify physics? Even if you are not a scientist.
• Couple all real constructs in every frame of reference spanning all scales to a common real geometric basis point? Explain why or why not.
• Fully couple all fundamental forces between all relevant and relative real constructs to those same real objects in the previous bullet?
• If you can’t explain the first three points then you very likely can not also couple the entirety of economics out to the unified Universe either.
• Nor likely can you explain how subjects as far ranging as art appreciation fit into all of this. The point of this insight is unification holds implications and ramifications very far afield from theoretical astrophysics. In fact, unification demands and requires the integration of everything real. Noodle on that…
• If you can not explain the above bullets then you also likely will struggle to explain why, what, how, where, when, and who.
• Do you believe science 1) can solve everything?, 2) is working directly with reality rather than abstractions of it, 3) do not routinely integrate these questions into your problem solving thinking, well, then… you may need to rethink all of that, and finally 4) can you reconcile all these and other issues simultaneously with the same set of constructs?. Because the body of what follows does.

This website enables exactly that capability. Here we are about taking what civilization has already accomplished and mode shifting it in order to illuminate to illustration the path between where we are today and the unified Universe. Part of what this web site is all about is describing the logic trap that got us all into this mess. The manacles binding constituents within it. We present in vast detail historical thinking, using the original author’s own words and how we mode shift that thinking into alignment with the unified Universe. We present biographies from the ancient past to modern contemporaries. What we did is simple to the point of elegance, hence the name. What is not simple are all the preconceived notions between your ears and only you can change them. Only you have the life experiences that created them. I can ask questions, present information, but you have to process it all. To employ a movie euphemism: ‘I can show you the door, but you have to walk through it.’

Multiple Logical Views of the Same Real System

When we think about any given object we will invariably employ an abstraction label in order to internalize that object to us and the worldview we employ to cope and deal with that object. The label is not the actual object, rather it is a reference to how reality instantiates what it is our label references. Take the image at right as a lose analogy to the concept. The real object has a front view, side view, etc., but these different views are not the object in its totality but rather how it might be viewed from that perspective.

As you go through the material that follows, understand that we are not saying reality is not instantiating any given real object. Rather we are saying that the fundamental core constructs have different definitions underpinning foundational abstractions, and they are highly systemic in their nature. That is to say there is more than one way to describe the same real object but perhaps from a different perspective. Any given point of view is not ‘wrong’, but it is unique to that vantage point. Characterizing, for example, where the doors and windows are in the actual hut depicted here exclusively from the point of view from the top is impossible. It is similarly impossible to characterize a given construct in one Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) from the point of view of another (distinct) EIM. EIMs manifest fundamental interpretative context.

Another aspect emerging from the discussions that follow is that if the only perspective investigators have is that top view, then what questions and perspectives are they missing because they can not perceive the other views? Do they even know those other views exist? Just as dangerous is the realization that what constructs previously believed to be real are in fact only artifacts made manifest by a particular logical view, but in reality do not exist at all. Essentially they are illusions that are a function of the manner in which we perceive that given set of circumstances. Not until we can juxtapose all of those various circumstances will those scenarios be illuminated to illustration. The body of work reflected here encourages as many different interpretative perspectives, (documented to international standards), in order to ferret out the maximum information about just how reality instantiates those particular points of view. The ultimate objective being, a better EIM with which to characterize the unified Universe. Never; however, do we claim that we reach that goal, lest we fall prey to committing Langer Epistemology Errors ourselves (e.g. erroneously mistaking abstractions for actual reality).

Unrealized Opportunities

Edwin Powell Hubble developed the understanding of Doppler Shift as it applied to the frequency of light in astronomy and astrophysics. Cosmological objects were either; Red Shifted because they were receding away from us, or Blue Shifted because they were moving toward us. We could, for the first time measure that velocity. The problem was that Hubble’s data proved that light had a velocity faster than that measured locally by interferometers here on Earth. When Albert Einstein peered through Hubble’s instrument he said then that he could not explain that data. Decades later another group of investigators suggested that it was the space between those objects that was either expanding or contracting which was responsible for the frequency shift Hubble measured and the term: z-factor was then developed. It never occurred to any of these folks that one measurement was a local phenomena and the other was a cosmological phenomena. The logic employed by all of these folks presumed and assumed that spacetime was a real construct rather than simply a logically correct construct.

As you read the remainder of this article know that so many throughout history have come so close what has ultimately become Elegant Reasonism but the one factor none of them recognized were Langer Epistemology Errors and the implications and ramifications of their commission. Another set of factors had to do with the maturity of information sciences and theories at the time. Some organizations were not formed until 1990. The original systems review supporting the development of this body of work was not released until 2012. We did not begin working on this website until 2019.

What Albert Einstein began developing in 1905 with his model, (which we here refer to as EIM M2), is absolutely 100% logically correct, and therein lay the strategic clue needed to gain the precipice from which the unified Universe may be both perceived and engaged. Remember, unification demands and requires an integrated view of everything real. Those bullet points above are not trivial, but vital in gaining that precipice.  While we acknowledge many here who helped me develop all of this there were three key investigators from history whose work was pivotal and they are (in alphabetical order): Albert Einstein, Susanne K Langer, and Lev B Okun. Continue on and you will come to understand the role each played.

Circa 2025 it is not fair to cast stones at anyone who has ever lived for not recognizing the issues involved. There are no humans that have ever lived that have not committed Langer Epistemology Errors, including me. Plato was plagued by many of exactly these kinds of situations, so these problems are anything but new. The distinction now is that civilization has developed Knowledge Management and information sciences continues to mature. I would also point out that for all its capability Artificial Intelligence made the same mistakes humanity made and likely for all the same reasons. It takes a multidisciplinary approach that is mobile, and can apply what it knows in net new scenarios in the field, but then you have to recognize what you are looking at when you see it. Alas there are so many knowledge barriers civilization has yet to deal with.

“What” Elegant Reasonism Is

Right this moment most newbies reading this likely believe they have a pretty good handle on what is and is not real. Very likely that is not the case and here’s why that assumption of grasp is false. Niels Bohr pointed out decades ago that all material particles are abstractions their behaviors and phenomena only definable relative to other systems and abstractions. Susanne K Langer pointed out that mistaking abstractions for actual reality is epistemologically fatal. Modern information theory/sciences illuminate to illustration that logical systems are more precise than physical systems because their inputs and outputs are defined in expected terms; which are too abstractions and because there is always more than one way to physically accomplish the same task. All of this leads directly into a swamp we call LEEs Empiricism Trap. One of the more dire implications of all this is that it leads us into thinking the monolithic path in front of us all leads directly to reality when in fact it leads to an interpretation based on abstractions reflecting reality. Magicians call this misdirection. Business people call it obfuscation.

The question then becomes what do we do about all this, and what I did was to create and develop Elegant Reasonism. Elegant Reasonism is a utility process employing a technological framework philosophically representing too a new Epistemology whose fundamental tenant requires truth philosophically as a function of the unified Universe entering science. While the traditional epistemologies are integrated and leveraged within Elegant Reasonism’s processes of Recognition, Illumination, and Analysis, they are also recognized as necessary but insufficient to perceive and engage unified reality exactly due to their historical dependence on human physiology because of the predilection of committing Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). You will see this definition again and again and it grows more profound every time you see it.

The reasons why takes on several forms:

• Do not presume you know what reality looks like. Rather, recognize that reality instantiates your view of it and there is a very important fine line in that insight you should not cross.
• Those mired inside LEEs Empiricism Trap believe they know what is and is not real, but then they employ equations that do not include all real constructs never realizing the implication of that act.
• Recognize that reality simultaneously instantiates many different logical views of the same system. That’s why we can have multiple theories for exactly the same physics.
• Realize that unification is bigger than any individual domain of discourse, including physics. Unification demands and requires the integration of everything real (without exception). The other side of that same coin is recognizing logical systems for what they are and they do have their place.
• With new insights comes new terminology, mode shifting for example. All mode shifting really means is taking what we thought we knew and aligning it with the unified Universe, but that is an admittedly oversimplification of the effort involved to make that happen.
• Historically, perhaps traditionally, scientists conduct an experiment and when it always turns out the same they cite that result as “empirical evidence”. The common thread through most epistemologies is human physiology. Taking the introductory paragraph above into context, what we realize is those experiments are based on what we call Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) and circa 2025 there is a high likelihood that the EIMs status quo thinking modeling reality employed does not close to unification. There are eight recognized EIMs here, and they are enumerated M0 – M7.
  • One tool enabled by Elegant Reasonism is being able to better distinguish between EIM derived principled laws and actual laws of nature.
• Recognize too that most of what it is we think we know is actually not based on the unified Universe, rather an interpretations of reality based on models that do not close to reality.
• Investigators and consultants tend to pool knowledge about processes and systems. Sometimes they employ groups like: ‘known knowns’, ‘known unknowns’, and ‘unknown unknowns’. Other times they may employ standard: what, when, where, why, and how questions. One of the most astonishing things emerging from our original systems review is that the answers to these questions can move from one group to another as a function of the EIM being employed. Take, for example, Newton’s Laws. Under EIMs M0, M1, or M2 those equations of motion are accepted as 1) true, 2) laws of nature. Under M5 they are also true, and the logical interpretation of them are instantiated by reality. The distinction is that M5 closes to unification where as they others do not. Not until we ask “why are those laws true?” do we really become astonished by the clarity of this process. Why Newton’s Laws are true is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer comprehending, (implications and ramifications of), the cogent description of M5.
• Just because you have a given set of answers to a given scenario does not mean other scenarios do not exist. The questions needing to be asked, which heretofore have been ignored, is whether or not the thinking behind those detail sets close to unification consistent with 100% of what we call the realm of the c’s (one of which is ‘close’).
• Before anyone can engage the newly emerging markets all this implies they must first learn to wield Elegant Reasonism transformationaly.
• Conversational Elegant Reasonism skills mean being able to employ critical stituationally awareness thinking (CSAT) capable of discerning the source of truth moment to moment in discussions and debate all the while leading the conversation transformationally.

Essentially we created a utility process employing a technological framework to epistemologically support truth as a function of the unified Universe. All this is simple to the point of elegance, but what is not simple is mode shifting what it is everyone thinks they know into alignment with the unified Universe because the fundamental interpretative context changes. This is akin to creating your own Rosetta Stone that focuses on your investigation. Once you are able to see and engage through the new context everything changes and it requires new modes of thought in order to engage. We teach you how to wield that perspective.

“Why” Elegant Reasonism Is Necessary

As you will come to understand, if you have the patience and persistence to comprehend what is being made available by this site:

• Science In Isolation (SII) is not the answer to accomplishing unification, exactly because it does not reconcile multiple theories which are simultaneously logically correct, have all consequences the same and which all agree with experiment. There is nothing inside science that can distinguish which of those theories is the correct theory. We must return to inquisitive roots to answer those questions.
• Status quo thinking modeling reality can not close to unification, and perhaps more importantly does not understand why it can not close.
• Modern science can not employ a common real geometric basis point for every real object in all frames of reference inertial and otherwise.
• Modern investigators have difficulty connecting phenomena across scales spanning quantum realms to cosmological.
• Answering questions like why time’s arrow is always positive.
• Reference frames today are not fully coupling all real objects to all forces at every scale and must employ different domains of inquiry.
• Most today assume and otherwise presume a monolithic path to the proverbial road to reality exactly because they believe they are working directly with reality rather than abstractions of it.
• Many if not most are ignorant of the deep implications and ramifications of modern information theory relative to how they interpret reality.
• Many, if not most, never stop to understand the implications and ramifications that something can be logically correct yet remain physically different in reality or that there can be multiple logical views of the same real system. The restful relationships between systems and systems of systems systemically spanning sales requires greater contemplation.
• Many, if not most, do not comprehend that mistaking abstractions for actual reality is epistemologically fatal.
• Because many, if not most, can not distinguish EIM derived Principled Laws from Actual Laws Instantiated by Nature they do not comprehend how to reconcile logic artifacts and explanations become exceedingly, and unnecessarily, elaborate. This situation is dangerous because it not only does it often lead to misrepresented results, but results that mislead investigators into ambiguous interpretations. The result can be considerable waste of time, energy, resources, effort, and capital that could all be better employed.
• There is no single silver bullet. No single domain of discourse nor single detail set that has all the answers. “The answer” is intrinsically embedded within the requirements of unification: which demands the integration of everything real. Everything real must simultaneously dovetail, and that includes the investigator performing the experiment.

General Knee-Jerk Reaction

Many, if not most, do not comprehend logical systems are more precise than are physical systems exactly because the inputs and outputs are defined and there is almost always more than one way to accomplish the same real task. The result is that LEEs Empiricism Trap ensnares and otherwise mires the innocent in a quagmire from which there is only a single escape we have found: Elegant Reasonism. If you find yourself surround by Not Invented Here (NIH) types then perhaps a broader perspective reset is needed in order to perceive the complete tapestry involved.

Sorting Things Out

EIMs establish fundamental interpretative context. Many people are simply not used to segregating concepts and constructs by epistemology much less EIMs. We have grown so used to the erroneous belief that science is dealing directly with reality rather than abstractions of it that any suggestion to the contrary forces many into dealing and coping with industry standard stages of grief. This is especially so if an individual is highly vested in status quo thinking modeling reality. Part of the reason for such segregation is integrity assurance. It is important to understand the source of concepts and constructs that are actually real and not just logically correct. It is important to understand whether the “law” being discussed (and as discussed) is a function of reality (e.g. Law of Nature) or if it is a manifestation of a particular Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) (e.g. EIM derived Principled Law). Once you have full understanding of, for example, the cogent description of M5 and how it aligns with the unified Universe, you may decide it is insufficient in some manner and you may conclude a quest for a net new EIM is warranted. We encourage you to go and do that work.

Elegant Reasonism Goals & Objectives

• Enable recognition of the capability, respective/relative relationships, limits, and synergistic integration of philosophy, axiology, epistemology, logic, science, supervenience in fully compliant, standards based, cogent context of the unified Universe (remembering that unification demands and requires the integration of everything real).
• Enable a credible means for others to gain the precipice from which they may both perceive and engage the unified Universe.
• Facilitate reflective paradigm management for all investigators in order to enable effective mode shifted investigations going forward.
• Establish interpretative context relative to and respective of the actual real unified Universe.
• Establish new markets across the global economy and enable global enterprise, academia, government, and others to perceive and engage those opportunities. This objective will revolutionize civilization.

SOLREI INC’s Mission

SolREI INC provides the knowledge, skills, and know-how, that allows people to take advantage of a connected world continuously transformed by information relative to and respective of the unified Universe. It is for this reason our first priority is awareness and enabling the necessary paradigm shifts in order others may engage these new markets. Our products are accordingly focused as a result.

• This website is constantly under construction.
• The challenge before us is literally the size of the unified Universe.
• Not only is this website not finished, it never will be.
• If we set attainable goals the bar was set too low.
• Join us on the journey and help us revolutionize civilization.

Original Systems Review Released

• Concept Sieves
  • EMCS01 original systems review concept list
  • EMCS02 Physical Properties
  • EMCS03 Thermodynamics
• Propositions
• Thought Experiments (a few examples below)
  • TE-0001: Critical Situally Aware Thinking (conversational recognition of assertions EIM to EIM)
  • TE-0004: Something vs Nothing (establishes basis for intrinsic nature of MBPs)
  • TE-0015: Universal Expansion: Popping The Balloon (dismantles the inflationary theory)

Unification

What this is all about can be distilled into a single word: unification. Just jumping in on this topic serves no purpose because there is no basis for communications, and that must be the first order of business. We must give you that foundational basis so that you can begin to comprehend what it is that has been missing until this time. Not missing really just misinterpreted. The most Ardent scientists are vested in their perceptions which in knowledge management circles might be referred to as a detail set. Professional training for the status quo is steeped in the Epistemology of Empiricism. To these people what we will say is 100% of you will agree that the status quo predominant thinking about the nature of the Universe is logically correct, and in that same breath we just gave you a strategic clue as why that thinking will never accomplish unification.

Almost no one understands what unification really means or demands of us, consequently we are building out this website to help with exactly that problem. Some think it is all about physics, and they cite this or that concept from the bowels of their relative and respective detail set. Often they think they are going to trip us up on some nuance of detail when in fact they are so lost in the forest, they can not see that forest for all the trees in the way. Some may cite Carl Sagan from his book the Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Others employ Dunning-Kruger suggesting that we are simply falling prey to our own ignorance. What we can say to all of these people is that you very likely missed the same set of information I did when I was in those hallowed halls of institutionalized thinking. I studied Aerospace Engineering and so was never introduced to Art Appreciation. If I had been I probably would have been told something about one Susanne K Langer who in 1948 observed a fact everyone since ignored. What she wrote about was that human physiology is wired to instantly provide the human brain abstractions in order for us all to relate to the world around us. That if anyone mistakes those abstractions for actual reality, it constitutes a fatal error in epistemology. That in a nut shell is the essential definition of what we now call Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). As far as I know, I was the first to use that term. The metaphorical coin on one side represents LEEs and on the other Information Sciences concepts of logical views of physical systems, which in modern times is professionally instantiated by Systems Engineering. This doesn’t begin to hit home until you assimilate these concept areas and then re-read the last sentence in the preceding paragraph.

Because of these and other issues, including standard knowledge management (KM) practices, the master domain of discourse is generally considered here to be philosophy and each of its constituent areas might be thought of as software subroutines in that they form a symbiotic, synergistic, relationship with all other areas and 100% of this body of work must conform to the realm of the c’s. When any constituent can not reconcile an issue we must visit the next higher order domain of discourse in order to resolve the situation because there is an issue that must ultimately be answered (or declared unknowable).

1. Philosophy: study of the unified Universe (e.g. all that is real) as a source of truth mode shifts:
   1. Axiology: Philosophy of value derivation
   2. Epistemology: Philosophy of knowledge
      1. Constructivism – Piaget argued that knowledge is constructed as the learner strives to organize his or her experiences in terms of preexisting mental structures or schemes
      2. Elegant Reasonism – McGowen argues:
         • Sources truth as a function of the unified Universe
         • Is a superset epistemology in that it may integrate all other epistemologies, so long as their relative context domains are taken into account and they are statistically weighted relative to and respective of the unified Universe.
      3. Empiricism – Sources truth as a function of experience, the ability to duplicate and replicate.
      4. Rationalism – Sources truth as a function of rationalized logic.
      5. … etc.
   3. Logic: Philosophy of valid inference or logical truth
      1. Logic Artifact – study of EIM products of contextual incongruity (in order to align with the realm of the c’s)
   4. Ontology: Philosophy of being
   5. Science: Philosophy of nature
      1. Biology
      2. Chemistry
      3. Physics
      4. etc., …
   6. Supervenience: Philosophy of relation between sets of properties or sets of facts

Understanding unification requires historical comprehension of Philosophical source of Science in order to avoid at all costs LEEs Empiricism Trap. The core constructs of any given encapsulated interpretive model must have unification as a predicate priority consideration. My original systems review undertook that mission in 2004 which ultimately culminated with gaining Patent Pending 16405134 status May 7th, 2019. Unification is a great deal larger than any single discipline of Science. Those who are intimately familiar with the traditional detail set associated with astrophysics, empiricism, quantum mechanics, etc, and look at others and dust off their hands as if to say you don’t know enough to understand you are wrong – are about to have their credentials handed back to them exactly because the Elegant Reasonism process, technology, and framework will mode shift the fundamental foundations on which their entire ability to perceive reality right out from under their proverbial feet. There is nothing they can do to stop that from occurring. Their only chance is to embrace Elegant Reasonism and wield it themselves.

Context matters when we make assertions. Relationships and patterns will likely change EIM to EIM. One direct implication of this is that terms are defined differently one EIM to the next.

Deeper Implications of Unification

Theoretical astrophysicists will be excited to know that The Emergence Model explains our Universe Bang to Bang, but in doing so are now faced with new realities, and many are philosophical in nature. You see, once you can describe the physical realm, you must also explain how humanity emerges, and that requires seamless integration of concepts such that they are intrinsically systemic. M5 does that. But the point does not stop there as physiology must yield philosophy, and philosophy and science must also once again be united (e.g. unified). Elegant Reasonism requires a plurality of encapsulated interpretive models be employed within the framework, one of which must close to unification as a philosophical predicate priority, and in fulfilling that requirement The Emergence Model is also included in the Elegant Reasonism patent application for that purpose.

M5 holds everything real as a system or system of systems. 

Truth as a Function of the unified Universe

Elegant Reasonism is a utility process employing a technological framework philosophically representing too a new Epistemology whose fundamental tenant requires truth philosophically as a function of the unified Universe entering science. While the traditional epistemologies are integrated and leveraged within Elegant Reasonism’s processes of Recognition, Illumination, and Analysis, they are also recognized as necessary but insufficient to perceive and engage unified reality exactly due to their historical dependence on human physiology because of the predilection of committing Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs).

Unification demands and requires the integration of everything real.

Mode Shifting Concepts

Mode Shifting means aligning what we think we know to be consistent with the unified Universe. It means having a clear perspective on the logically correct view of real systems both distinct from how reality actually instantiates everything. It means not being tricked by experimental results that are repeatable but which do not close to unification. It means having better tools to investigate multiple theories that are all logically correct, have the same consequences and which agree with experiment.

Mode shifting is a new concept that allows humanity to take what it is we all think we know and bring it into alignment with the unified Universe. If you think you already know everything then perhaps you can explain the reasons Newton’s Laws are true. Or perhaps galactic acceleration or any number of other phenomena across nature that defies traditional approaches. Oh, the only caveat here is that 100% of all constructs considered real must be included in your explanation, at every scale. This is a non-trivial task but is worth of the effort because it explains a great many mysteries and why things are the way they are.

Communicating Elegant Reasonism

The issues and challenges surrounding any ability to communicate Elegant Reasonism have been noted since ancient times and are not new by any measure. Plato presented similar issues in his allegory of The Cave presented in book seven of The Republic. The strategic core message here contests the worldview held by status quo thinking modeling reality for several reasons: 1) it does not close to unification (we know why it does not), 2) there is pervasive lack of recognition of the implications and ramifications of employing abstractions, and there are more reasons but they are for another time.

Individuals highly vested in that status quo thinking modeling reality are very likely going to need to transition the standard stages of grief as they process the necessary paradigm shifts needed to recognize the solution. In the mean time each successive stage of grief will require management in order to deal and otherwise cope with those changes. I went through the same stages. The original systems review notes had the essential elements documented a full two years before I recognized what they meant and I was looking at them every day. Consequently I understand how difficult all this is to process. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt (I got mode shifted).

Never present Elegant Reasonism derived insights absent the means by which they were made manifest.

The stages of grief depicted here are useful to know for two reasons. One is that you are likely to transition them yourself (I did) and it is useful to recognize them in yourself as you process the broader material here. Second is that you are going to encounter those stages in other people you engage about this material. It is important that you recognize where they are in the process so discussions are more productive and effective. Remember, Albert Einstein published his first papers beginning in 1905. While he won a Nobel Prize in 1921 it was for his work on the photoelectric effect, not relativity. In fact he never won that prize for his most noted work. Go figure… Part of the point here is that people generally do not like change. That particular problem is anything but new.

Communicating Context

The issue underpinning all effective communications is maintaining context, and therein lay the strategic challenge. It is one that also underpins Plato’s Cave allegory. The issues are the same. What Elegant Reasonism brings is a standards based framework that leverages penetrating insights from the information sciences, especially knowledge management, along with some new tools and technologies like Translation Matrices and our ISO 9001 Unification Tool. The conceit humans have historically demonstrated for interpretative perspective was arguably not humbled until Jean-François Champollion was made aware of the Rosetta Stone that had the same text in three languages. For the first time we were able to translate the hieroglyphics from ancient Egypt. What we had previously lacked, was context.

Context is what Elegant Reasonism brings to any discussion. For the first time we can distinguish between purely logical systems and real systems in order to understand how reality instantiates them all. Reality is unified whether or not your thinking about it is. Just because you can not measure something does not mean that investigative frame is empty. It might mean your instruments are lacking capability. Just because you can measure something, repeatedly and with high assurance and integrity does not mean there is not more than one way to explain the same results. Now we have a more equipped tool bag with which to approach such problems. However, not everyone is aware of these tools or how they work, much less the insights they enable.

Beyond Perception’s Threshold

Predominant status quo thinking is something Elegant Reasonism typically encapsulates into the interpretive model M1, sometimes M2, depending on how mass is employed discussed herein by Concept 0297. Noting that what Einstein created with his model is in fact logically correct, we must step back from that recognition with keen situational awareness in the fullness of implications given us by modern Information Sciences and the Elegant Reasonism framework supporting that Epistemology. The patent application states that its purpose is to “perceive and engage” the unified Universe. Status quo thinking can not perceive the unified Universe. If it could, it would have done so a very long time ago. It didn’t, and so we will leave that point as self-evident. However, therein lay a strategic problem for communications. How do you communicate something someone else can not perceive? Moreover, they believe themselves in a philosophical realm capable of directly perceiving nature. They are in essence oblivious to the implications associated with LEEs.

There is an old allegory of a person seeking a penny in the corner of a round room. They will search for that penny forever, and they will never find it because round rooms have no corners.  Carl Sagan, in his epic video series Cosmos,  presented a similar discussion about mythical two dimensional creatures living in a place called “flat land” who were visited by a three dimensional apple. While similar in essential meaning, these examples relate here because there are aspects of the needed conversation which require common communication basis acquisition. All parties in any communication must fully comprehend or communications does not occur. In the essence of that failure, someone speaks or writes, and though they see the other party, they do not understand and so communications break down. We can penetrate status quo belligerence by asking some cogent questions.

Q: Can the body of your knowledge and experience accomplish unification? No? Do you understand why that is true? Because if you do not, I do, and it is explained herein. You need only register to be provided that answer.

Status quo thinking ties out to the context made manifest by the encapsulated interpretive model instantiating it. If that model can not perceive unification, then neither will the individual using it as their basis for understanding nature. There is no amount of effort, money or resources that will ever change that situation. The implication then is that there are efforts currently underway consuming billions in capital and thousands in terms of human resources which are essentially in a round room looking for something in the corner. They will never find it exactly because the fundamental model instantiating their belief system precludes it.

The Fallacy

The fallacy instantiating illusion of the status quo lay with the allegorical coin discussed above. Expecting to find the allegorical penny when the room has been inappropriately defined is irrational. Failure to recognize the constructs influence is a clue that one is dealing with LEEs. Ask yourself if you can employ a common real geometric basis point to describe all real objects in a given reference frame. The status quo can not accomplish that exactly because no real object can traverse the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy. Yet they constantly tout their successes. Their successes are in fact directly due to the logical correctness of their thinking, but that has nothing to do with anything else other than the logical correctness of the encapsulated interpretive model (EIM) instantiating that context. Therein lies the fallacy.

Monolith

Science in isolation (SII) is also not the answer if only for all the reasons pointed out by Feynman. LEEs occur when abstractions are mistaken for actual reality and the mistake itself is not as impactful as are implications and ramifications of having made it because all subsequent decisions are based on that mistake. The is the essential insidious nature of LEEs Empiricism Trap. The insight here is the erroneous belief by most scientists and engineers that they are working directly with reality when they are in fact working with abstractions of it. The strategic issue with that is there are more than one way to accomplish the same task. Logical views of real systems are almost always required. That’s why mechanical drawings minimally have three views: Top, side, and front projections. Others include six views to accommodate every projection of objects. Only when we recognize the implications of the insight that nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy do we more fully realize the importance of modern information theory in the various contexts being made manifest in these discussions. Anyone declaring an absolute “road to reality” does not understand these implications. Even here Elegant Reasonism Rules require a plurality of EIMs be employed and The Emergence Model does fit those requirements there is nothing preventing someone from developing a better EIM. If you believe that EIM is incorrect then you are free to develop a more effective fully compliant approach.

The Key

Re-read the paragraph above that illuminates what Elegant Reasonism brings to these discussions. Register and then come back and read this article again because now all of the links it contains will resolve to other pages deeper in the system here including our resource library. Why would we want to explain our patent pending 16405134 IP to everyone on Earth? Simple. Our business is about helping others add value from the insights enabled and empowered by what it is we have done. Everyone on Earth is covered by our General Use License if all they want to do is comprehend. The more people that know how to wield the IP asset we brought to the world, the better we like it. We want to help you add value to whatever it is you do. There are no aspects of human endeavor not touched by what it is we have accomplished.

The future is bright and Elegant Reasonism illuminates the way forward finding truth in the unified Universe.

__________________________________

Shop

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification